|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
On May 13 2015 07:29 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On May 13 2015 07:27 Anesthetic wrote:On May 13 2015 07:23 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 13 2015 07:20 Anesthetic wrote:On May 13 2015 07:09 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 13 2015 06:58 Anesthetic wrote:On May 13 2015 06:19 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 13 2015 06:06 Anesthetic wrote:
@GreenHorizons
I think your on a thin line here, while I understand your points about blacks having unique problems that whites can't understand, at the very same time this can so easily turn into the "Blacks can't be racist" type of thoughts that are just so incredibly dumb.
Things have to be taken in an objective manner and thats quite a big problem with the Social Justice Movement, because even though YOU are using proper arguments/logic, a lot of those movements prefer to just act like nobody except blacks can comment on black issues, even if they have much stronger evidence. While I completely understand that whites will never know what its like to be a minority in this country(I am Mexican myself), there always have to be an effort to remain objective. Blacks can't be racist, they don't have the institutional power to be racist. They can act on prejudices but they lack the institutionalized power to make those prejudices standard practice. If one refuses to accept the delineation and difference between acting on prejudices and racism than sure black people can be racist too. Of course such an understanding betrays a woeful lack of understanding of what prejudice and racism actually are. On May 13 2015 06:14 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On May 13 2015 05:19 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 13 2015 05:02 Wolfstan wrote:
[quote]
Are you being sarcastic like that surfer riot video? Because I'm really not sure. The tone? Yes a bit, I am mimicking the standard talking points/rhetoric used when racial injustice issues come up. The facts are the facts though. Almost 70% of government benefits go to white people. White people have had every opportunity everyone else has and then some in America. If the problems black people face are supposed to be primarily of their own making surely the heavy burden white people put on the government and hard working Americans who pay for those benefits white people overwhelmingly receive is also of their own making? Another finding of the study is that the distribution of benefits no longer aligns with the demography of poverty. African-Americans, who make up 22 percent of the poor, receive 14 percent of government benefits, close to their 12 percent population share.
White non-Hispanics, who make up 42 percent of the poor, receive 69 percent of government benefits – again, much closer to their 64 percent population share. Source According to your data table white are mainly receiving benefits tied to their contributions (social security) while blacks and hispanics are receiving benefits tied to their economic circumstances (poor / unemployed). The benefits to blacks would be dis-proportionally paid for by whites, which would make the whole system re-distributive from whites to blacks and hispanics. Seriously, just skip to the personal insults and move on to someone/something else. We are both well aware we can't engage in productive discussion with each other. You don't necessarily have to have institutionalized power to be racist. If you are a white kid in a pre-dominantly black school then you will definitely experience racism at some point. I can say for certain that I have experienced racism on part from blacks. And I have to very much disagree. A black kid raised in a medium income family, in an environment that is "Average" for whites, will have an advantage over his white peers that were in exactly the same conditions. Rich black families will have a HUGE advantage over an "average" white family. This is what personally irks me, that people are making such blanket scenarios that are completely unfair in some conditions. Sure, that black kid might suffer from racism at some point in his life, but he has a much higher chance than comparable white kids when he applies to college. Like i said, that kind of thinking has absolutely no place in a civilized and fair society. Racism is something that has to be dealt with carefully on EVERY step, and we can't just jump to conclusions and ignore evidence on the pretext that "blacks can't be racist". So frustrating explaining the same things over and over again. What you're describing is prejudice. If you want to call it racism so it makes you feel better fine, but then you have to have a different name for when it becomes institutionalized and systemic. I don't mean in one particular school, county or state either. Because they all fall under a larger umbrella of white privilege and institutional racism that they don't have over whites on a comparable level. The problem I think stems from the mistaken notion that individual cases of prejudices are universally less bad than racism. That's just not true. A black business owner who chooses not to hire any white people because they are white is doing something just as individually bad as the white owner who refuses to hire black people because they are black. The difference is in the disparate impact. If no black businesses hired white people that's not nearly the same problem as no white owned businesses hiring black people. So while on the individual level what they are doing is practically the same, the real world impact outside of their personal sphere is dramatically different. This is evidenced by the study with resumes with black vs white sounding names. The difference between racism and prejudice should crystallize for most people there. Even if every black person was out right KKK type 'racist' against whites they can't change the fact that white names will get called back more often. If you still can't see the difference or the importance of separating the two with different words I don't think I have the patience to help you. On May 13 2015 07:01 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On May 13 2015 06:52 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 13 2015 06:35 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On May 13 2015 06:14 JonnyBNoHo wrote:
[quote]
According to your data table white are mainly receiving benefits tied to their contributions (social security) while blacks and hispanics are receiving benefits tied to their economic circumstances (poor / unemployed). The benefits to blacks would be dis-proportionally paid for by whites, which would make the whole system re-distributive from whites to blacks and hispanics. Seriously, just skip to the personal insults and move on to someone/something else. We are both well aware we can't engage in productive discussion with each other. I didn't mean any ill will. If you post what I consider to be bad information on a public forum I'm going to publicly note it. You are welcome to ignore my post, rather than engage, if you prefer. Your post couldn't come off as more disingenuous if you tried man. There are tons of 'bad information' posts, you cherry pick which ones you want to 'publicly note' as being 'bad information'. It's transparent as all hell and you're not fooling anyone. Slowly but surely as your posts have gone down in quality more and more people are getting wise to your non-sense. You may think your little "well some people/situations don't fit that pattern" one-liners are some revelation, without which the discussion would be woefully off course, but they are little more than childish rejoinders. The people for which you point out the most pointless 'flaws' in their argument is almost exclusively something they have already considered and is not relevant to the larger point. Evidenced by your remark about the redistributive nature of government benefits. Yes, I tend to point out the bad information posts coming from the lefties. That's largely because when a righty makes a post, there are far more lefties here who will actively try to refute it. You guys generally don't need my help there and I don't enjoy piling on like a bunch of grim patrons. As for the relevance of my post, I don't see why your 'larger point' should be taken seriously when it is built upon a bunch of garbage. If your posts cannot survive scrutiny, than your posts are a failure. It's up to you to make arguments that don't suck, and it's up to you to tackle any challenges to your opinions. I should of known better than to let your inane comments push me to respond. Come on TL give me an ignore feature please!? Racism is "the belief that all members of each race possess characteristics or abilities specific to that race, especially so as to distinguish it as inferior or superior to another race or races." According to any textbook definition I find on the internet, which is pretty much what I was describing, and not at all what you are describing. I do actually refer to the system of inequalities and feedback loops that keep minorities down as Institutionalized racism, I don't exactly think that you nor blacks have a copyright on what racism means to each person. But you think white people do... jfc This thread has a knack for making people put words in my mouth, its quite incredible to see how quickly you guys resort to this. No ones putting anything in your mouth. Where did you get your definition of racism from? Was it originally written or determined by non-white people?
You do realize that "white" people invented the entire English language?
EDIT: Also, are we really once again back to you discrediting things by saying it wasn't the "right" person that said it? You really should start focusing more on the inherent validity of statements and definitions themselves rather than who uttered them.
|
Yeah... GH has once again gone off the deep end into some alternate reality.
No racism is not purely from white to color.
No your redefined meaning is not accepted.
I know lets randomly redefine some other words aswel so we cant have any discussions anymore because everyone thinks words have a new meaning.
I must admit calling the dictionary racist is a new one tho. that got a good laugh.
|
Yeah people not finding jobs has nothing to do with race but everything to do with unemployment as a concept being a desired feature of capitalism, by the employers, as it drives down the price of labor. And there being no reason there should ever be enough demand for work, to get everyone some sustenance.
|
--Edited for too flamebaity--
|
@ghost Have you ever thought the reason black people overwhelmingly don't support Republicans is because they represent privileged, racist, assholes, and people who can't begin to comprehend how undeniably racist and privileged their comments obviously are?
The obliviousness of the racism and white privilege here is astonishing. I'll just take a break for a while. I obviously can't get through to those of you who refuse to see what's right in front of you.
|
United States42698 Posts
Seems to me that GH is simply trying to explain the difference between weather and climate to people who keep looking out of windows.
|
On May 13 2015 07:39 puerk wrote:
Yeah people not finding jobs has nothing to do with race but everything to do with unemployment as a concept being a desired feature of capitalism, by the employers, as it drives down the price of labor. And there being no reason there should ever be enough demand for work, to get everyone some sustenance.
Capitalism prefers full employment actually. What you want is for a job to be available to everyone, and the only unemployment to be a timing difference between matching those without jobs to the jobs available (only structural unemployment). Earnings and valuations tend to be higher when the economy is doing well, and employment is close to full.
|
On May 13 2015 06:19 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On May 13 2015 06:06 Anesthetic wrote:
@GreenHorizons
I think your on a thin line here, while I understand your points about blacks having unique problems that whites can't understand, at the very same time this can so easily turn into the "Blacks can't be racist" type of thoughts that are just so incredibly dumb.
Things have to be taken in an objective manner and thats quite a big problem with the Social Justice Movement, because even though YOU are using proper arguments/logic, a lot of those movements prefer to just act like nobody except blacks can comment on black issues, even if they have much stronger evidence. While I completely understand that whites will never know what its like to be a minority in this country(I am Mexican myself), there always have to be an effort to remain objective. Blacks can't be racist, they don't have the institutional power to be racist. They can act on prejudices but they lack the institutionalized power to make those prejudices standard practice.
But making prejudices standard practice isn't what makes something racist; that only perpetuates the racism and makes it longer lasting (which is certainly worse), but anyone can be racist exactly through the acting of prejudices that you mention.
You're right that blacks being racist doesn't really mean as much as a powerful majority being racist against blacks... and that we should certainly be focusing on the bigger picture and the people in charge making sure they can spread equality... but that doesn't give minorities a free pass to be bigots.
|
On May 13 2015 06:42 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On May 13 2015 06:41 ZasZ. wrote:On May 13 2015 06:25 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:Quick: List the first four words that pop into your mind when you hear NASA.
If you are like most folks, you hit some mix of astronauts, moon landings, space telescopes and Mars probes. Those are pretty positive images representing accomplishments we can all feel proud about.
Astronauts are, after all, great American heroes. And space telescopes are reminders of just how smart — and insanely capable — Americans can be. Put it all together and you can see why NASA does superhero stuff in the eyes of most people.
It's also stuff that's universally recognized to be the kind where you absolutely, positively can't afford to be wrong. And that is why NASA is a real problem for climate denialism.
If you are intent on convincing people there is no climate change, then the last thing you want is NASA — with all its heroism and accuracy — telling folks climate change is real. So, faced with this dilemma, climate denialist's have come up with a clever solution: Get NASA out of climate change science.
As has been widely reported, the House Science, Space and Technology Committee recently approved a bill that would cut at least $300 million from NASA's earth-science budget. This comes after the head of the Senate committee overseeing NASA claimed the agency should stop doing earth-science and focus only on space exploration.
Both these moves are part of a broader effort to hobble American science from doing its job in exploring the planet's climate. As reported by Elizabeth Kolbert in the New Yorker:
"The vote on the NASA bill came just a week after the same House committee approved major funding cuts to the National Science Foundation's [NSF] geosciences program, as well as cuts to Department of Energy programs that support research into new energy sources."
But even with the broader effort, the emphasis on NASA seems particularly pointed. How many people even know what the NSF stands for — or what the National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) does all day?
But NASA is different. Every kid knows NASA. Every parent knows NASA. NASA is cool. NASA is Superman.
So, when NASA tells us that Earth's climate is changing because of human activity, it carries a lot weight. It's a weight climate denialists have a hard time bearing up under. Source I mean, I understand what Republicans are doing and why they are doing it, but I can't see any reason why NASA should be in charge of climate science and I do think they should focus on space exploration. I also see little benefit in continuing to dump millions of dollars into climate change science. Whether you agree with climate change or not, minds are pretty much made up on this already. IMO, it's time to stop studying (so much) and start doing (more). I'll leave this here, because it conveys this point much better than I ever could: + Show Spoiler + NASA is in the business of climate study because a lot of the data comes from satellites.
And because our Earth is part of the universe 
|
On May 13 2015 07:42 KwarK wrote:
Seems to me that GH is simply trying to explain the difference between weather and climate to people who keep looking out of windows.
No he's trying to change the definitions of weather and climate because he thinks one has connotations that make his argument stronger.
It's having the opposite effect.
|
United States42698 Posts
On May 13 2015 07:46 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On May 13 2015 07:42 KwarK wrote:
Seems to me that GH is simply trying to explain the difference between weather and climate to people who keep looking out of windows. No he's trying to change the definitions of weather and climate because he thinks one has connotations that make his argument stronger. It's having the opposite effect.
I think institutional racism and racism are better terms than the racism and prejudice terms he's using but I can still understand what he means. I don't know why he's not using a common language with the rest of us but I can understand the distinction he's talking about.
|
On May 13 2015 07:34 Anesthetic wrote:Show nested quote +On May 13 2015 07:31 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On May 13 2015 07:29 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 13 2015 07:27 Anesthetic wrote:On May 13 2015 07:23 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 13 2015 07:20 Anesthetic wrote:On May 13 2015 07:09 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 13 2015 06:58 Anesthetic wrote:On May 13 2015 06:19 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 13 2015 06:06 Anesthetic wrote:
@GreenHorizons
I think your on a thin line here, while I understand your points about blacks having unique problems that whites can't understand, at the very same time this can so easily turn into the "Blacks can't be racist" type of thoughts that are just so incredibly dumb.
Things have to be taken in an objective manner and thats quite a big problem with the Social Justice Movement, because even though YOU are using proper arguments/logic, a lot of those movements prefer to just act like nobody except blacks can comment on black issues, even if they have much stronger evidence. While I completely understand that whites will never know what its like to be a minority in this country(I am Mexican myself), there always have to be an effort to remain objective. Blacks can't be racist, they don't have the institutional power to be racist. They can act on prejudices but they lack the institutionalized power to make those prejudices standard practice. If one refuses to accept the delineation and difference between acting on prejudices and racism than sure black people can be racist too. Of course such an understanding betrays a woeful lack of understanding of what prejudice and racism actually are. On May 13 2015 06:14 JonnyBNoHo wrote:
[quote]
According to your data table white are mainly receiving benefits tied to their contributions (social security) while blacks and hispanics are receiving benefits tied to their economic circumstances (poor / unemployed). The benefits to blacks would be dis-proportionally paid for by whites, which would make the whole system re-distributive from whites to blacks and hispanics. Seriously, just skip to the personal insults and move on to someone/something else. We are both well aware we can't engage in productive discussion with each other. You don't necessarily have to have institutionalized power to be racist. If you are a white kid in a pre-dominantly black school then you will definitely experience racism at some point. I can say for certain that I have experienced racism on part from blacks. And I have to very much disagree. A black kid raised in a medium income family, in an environment that is "Average" for whites, will have an advantage over his white peers that were in exactly the same conditions. Rich black families will have a HUGE advantage over an "average" white family. This is what personally irks me, that people are making such blanket scenarios that are completely unfair in some conditions. Sure, that black kid might suffer from racism at some point in his life, but he has a much higher chance than comparable white kids when he applies to college. Like i said, that kind of thinking has absolutely no place in a civilized and fair society. Racism is something that has to be dealt with carefully on EVERY step, and we can't just jump to conclusions and ignore evidence on the pretext that "blacks can't be racist". So frustrating explaining the same things over and over again. What you're describing is prejudice. If you want to call it racism so it makes you feel better fine, but then you have to have a different name for when it becomes institutionalized and systemic. I don't mean in one particular school, county or state either. Because they all fall under a larger umbrella of white privilege and institutional racism that they don't have over whites on a comparable level. The problem I think stems from the mistaken notion that individual cases of prejudices are universally less bad than racism. That's just not true. A black business owner who chooses not to hire any white people because they are white is doing something just as individually bad as the white owner who refuses to hire black people because they are black. The difference is in the disparate impact. If no black businesses hired white people that's not nearly the same problem as no white owned businesses hiring black people. So while on the individual level what they are doing is practically the same, the real world impact outside of their personal sphere is dramatically different. This is evidenced by the study with resumes with black vs white sounding names. The difference between racism and prejudice should crystallize for most people there. Even if every black person was out right KKK type 'racist' against whites they can't change the fact that white names will get called back more often. If you still can't see the difference or the importance of separating the two with different words I don't think I have the patience to help you. On May 13 2015 07:01 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On May 13 2015 06:52 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 13 2015 06:35 JonnyBNoHo wrote:
[quote]
I didn't mean any ill will. If you post what I consider to be bad information on a public forum I'm going to publicly note it. You are welcome to ignore my post, rather than engage, if you prefer. Your post couldn't come off as more disingenuous if you tried man. There are tons of 'bad information' posts, you cherry pick which ones you want to 'publicly note' as being 'bad information'. It's transparent as all hell and you're not fooling anyone. Slowly but surely as your posts have gone down in quality more and more people are getting wise to your non-sense. You may think your little "well some people/situations don't fit that pattern" one-liners are some revelation, without which the discussion would be woefully off course, but they are little more than childish rejoinders. The people for which you point out the most pointless 'flaws' in their argument is almost exclusively something they have already considered and is not relevant to the larger point. Evidenced by your remark about the redistributive nature of government benefits. Yes, I tend to point out the bad information posts coming from the lefties. That's largely because when a righty makes a post, there are far more lefties here who will actively try to refute it. You guys generally don't need my help there and I don't enjoy piling on like a bunch of grim patrons. As for the relevance of my post, I don't see why your 'larger point' should be taken seriously when it is built upon a bunch of garbage. If your posts cannot survive scrutiny, than your posts are a failure. It's up to you to make arguments that don't suck, and it's up to you to tackle any challenges to your opinions. I should of known better than to let your inane comments push me to respond. Come on TL give me an ignore feature please!? Racism is "the belief that all members of each race possess characteristics or abilities specific to that race, especially so as to distinguish it as inferior or superior to another race or races." According to any textbook definition I find on the internet, which is pretty much what I was describing, and not at all what you are describing. I do actually refer to the system of inequalities and feedback loops that keep minorities down as Institutionalized racism, I don't exactly think that you nor blacks have a copyright on what racism means to each person. But you think white people do... jfc This thread has a knack for making people put words in my mouth, its quite incredible to see how quickly you guys resort to this. No ones putting anything in your mouth. Where did you get your definition of racism from? Was it originally written or determined by non-white people? So.. the dictionary definition isn't good enough because it comes from white people. Uh-huh. Exactly, this kind of toxic thoughts is actually what keeps minorities down.I recently had a friend graduate from college and complain that the racist system didn't allow her to find a job, never mind the fact that she got a bachelors in African-American studies. Nope, ignore facts and evidence and just blame whites. I'm sure minorities will make loads of progress this way.
Reminds me of the professor who was called racist for correcting spelling / grammar errors on minority students' papers.
|
On May 13 2015 07:42 KwarK wrote:
Seems to me that GH is simply trying to explain the difference between weather and climate to people who keep looking out of windows.
Seems to me that he is trying to say that racism is to climate as prejudice is to weather, but in reality the words don't fit. The differences between weather and climate exist in a racial setting as well, but the words don't match up like that.
Edit: Yeah..basically the same thing you just posted.
|
On May 13 2015 07:50 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On May 13 2015 07:34 Anesthetic wrote:On May 13 2015 07:31 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On May 13 2015 07:29 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 13 2015 07:27 Anesthetic wrote:On May 13 2015 07:23 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 13 2015 07:20 Anesthetic wrote:On May 13 2015 07:09 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 13 2015 06:58 Anesthetic wrote:On May 13 2015 06:19 GreenHorizons wrote:
[quote]
Blacks can't be racist, they don't have the institutional power to be racist. They can act on prejudices but they lack the institutionalized power to make those prejudices standard practice.
If one refuses to accept the delineation and difference between acting on prejudices and racism than sure black people can be racist too. Of course such an understanding betrays a woeful lack of understanding of what prejudice and racism actually are.
[quote]
Seriously, just skip to the personal insults and move on to someone/something else. We are both well aware we can't engage in productive discussion with each other. You don't necessarily have to have institutionalized power to be racist. If you are a white kid in a pre-dominantly black school then you will definitely experience racism at some point. I can say for certain that I have experienced racism on part from blacks. And I have to very much disagree. A black kid raised in a medium income family, in an environment that is "Average" for whites, will have an advantage over his white peers that were in exactly the same conditions. Rich black families will have a HUGE advantage over an "average" white family. This is what personally irks me, that people are making such blanket scenarios that are completely unfair in some conditions. Sure, that black kid might suffer from racism at some point in his life, but he has a much higher chance than comparable white kids when he applies to college. Like i said, that kind of thinking has absolutely no place in a civilized and fair society. Racism is something that has to be dealt with carefully on EVERY step, and we can't just jump to conclusions and ignore evidence on the pretext that "blacks can't be racist". So frustrating explaining the same things over and over again. What you're describing is prejudice. If you want to call it racism so it makes you feel better fine, but then you have to have a different name for when it becomes institutionalized and systemic. I don't mean in one particular school, county or state either. Because they all fall under a larger umbrella of white privilege and institutional racism that they don't have over whites on a comparable level. The problem I think stems from the mistaken notion that individual cases of prejudices are universally less bad than racism. That's just not true. A black business owner who chooses not to hire any white people because they are white is doing something just as individually bad as the white owner who refuses to hire black people because they are black. The difference is in the disparate impact. If no black businesses hired white people that's not nearly the same problem as no white owned businesses hiring black people. So while on the individual level what they are doing is practically the same, the real world impact outside of their personal sphere is dramatically different. This is evidenced by the study with resumes with black vs white sounding names. The difference between racism and prejudice should crystallize for most people there. Even if every black person was out right KKK type 'racist' against whites they can't change the fact that white names will get called back more often. If you still can't see the difference or the importance of separating the two with different words I don't think I have the patience to help you. On May 13 2015 07:01 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On May 13 2015 06:52 GreenHorizons wrote:
[quote]
Your post couldn't come off as more disingenuous if you tried man. There are tons of 'bad information' posts, you cherry pick which ones you want to 'publicly note' as being 'bad information'. It's transparent as all hell and you're not fooling anyone.
Slowly but surely as your posts have gone down in quality more and more people are getting wise to your non-sense. You may think your little "well some people/situations don't fit that pattern" one-liners are some revelation, without which the discussion would be woefully off course, but they are little more than childish rejoinders. The people for which you point out the most pointless 'flaws' in their argument is almost exclusively something they have already considered and is not relevant to the larger point. Evidenced by your remark about the redistributive nature of government benefits. Yes, I tend to point out the bad information posts coming from the lefties. That's largely because when a righty makes a post, there are far more lefties here who will actively try to refute it. You guys generally don't need my help there and I don't enjoy piling on like a bunch of grim patrons. As for the relevance of my post, I don't see why your 'larger point' should be taken seriously when it is built upon a bunch of garbage. If your posts cannot survive scrutiny, than your posts are a failure. It's up to you to make arguments that don't suck, and it's up to you to tackle any challenges to your opinions. I should of known better than to let your inane comments push me to respond. Come on TL give me an ignore feature please!? Racism is "the belief that all members of each race possess characteristics or abilities specific to that race, especially so as to distinguish it as inferior or superior to another race or races." According to any textbook definition I find on the internet, which is pretty much what I was describing, and not at all what you are describing. I do actually refer to the system of inequalities and feedback loops that keep minorities down as Institutionalized racism, I don't exactly think that you nor blacks have a copyright on what racism means to each person. But you think white people do... jfc This thread has a knack for making people put words in my mouth, its quite incredible to see how quickly you guys resort to this. No ones putting anything in your mouth. Where did you get your definition of racism from? Was it originally written or determined by non-white people? So.. the dictionary definition isn't good enough because it comes from white people. Uh-huh. Exactly, this kind of toxic thoughts is actually what keeps minorities down.I recently had a friend graduate from college and complain that the racist system didn't allow her to find a job, never mind the fact that she got a bachelors in African-American studies. Nope, ignore facts and evidence and just blame whites. I'm sure minorities will make loads of progress this way. Reminds me of the professor who was called racist for correcting spelling / grammar errors on minority students' papers.
Did he correct everyone's paper? Or like, did he correct "ebonics" on a formal paper or something?
|
On May 13 2015 07:42 GreenHorizons wrote:
@ghost Have you ever thought the reason black people overwhelmingly don't support Republicans is because they represent privileged, racist, assholes, and people who can't begin to comprehend how undeniably racist and privileged their comments obviously are?
The obliviousness of the racism and white privilege here is astonishing. I'll just take a break for a while. I obviously can't get through to those of you who refuse to see what's right in front of you.
I fail to see the relevance of who support the Republicans to the discussion at hand? I also fail to see how the comments in this thread have been any more racist than yours. After all you are the ONLY one who has discredited the validity of a definition based on skin colour...
|
On May 13 2015 07:44 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Show nested quote +On May 13 2015 06:19 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 13 2015 06:06 Anesthetic wrote:
@GreenHorizons
I think your on a thin line here, while I understand your points about blacks having unique problems that whites can't understand, at the very same time this can so easily turn into the "Blacks can't be racist" type of thoughts that are just so incredibly dumb.
Things have to be taken in an objective manner and thats quite a big problem with the Social Justice Movement, because even though YOU are using proper arguments/logic, a lot of those movements prefer to just act like nobody except blacks can comment on black issues, even if they have much stronger evidence. While I completely understand that whites will never know what its like to be a minority in this country(I am Mexican myself), there always have to be an effort to remain objective. Blacks can't be racist, they don't have the institutional power to be racist. They can act on prejudices but they lack the institutionalized power to make those prejudices standard practice. But making prejudices standard practice isn't what makes something racist; that only perpetuates the racism and makes it longer lasting (which is certainly worse), but anyone can be racist exactly through the acting of prejudices that you mention. You're right that blacks being racist doesn't really mean as much as a powerful majority being racist against blacks... and that we should certainly be focusing on the bigger picture and the people in charge making sure they can spread equality... but that doesn't give minorities a free pass to be bigots.
Since you have been more reasonable than most I'll address what you said. No one is giving anyone a free pass. If you read my post carefully I even said on the individual level it is practically the same.
The resistance to white privilege being established as a known reality and that institutionalized racism is a one way street seems to be heavily based on just simply misunderstanding what is even being said.
If anything when black people act on prejudices or act 'racist' if you prefer, I think it's a little worse since they have been a victim of such before. I give white people a little more leniency as they are largely clueless through no significant individual fault of their own.
However once white people are confronted with white privilege and/or their own racism and refuse to acknowledge it, let alone correct it, that patience rapidly fades.
|
On May 13 2015 07:49 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On May 13 2015 07:46 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On May 13 2015 07:42 KwarK wrote:
Seems to me that GH is simply trying to explain the difference between weather and climate to people who keep looking out of windows. No he's trying to change the definitions of weather and climate because he thinks one has connotations that make his argument stronger. It's having the opposite effect. I think institutional racism and racism are better terms than the racism and prejudice terms he's using but I can still understand what he means. I don't know why he's not using a common language with the rest of us but I can understand the distinction he's talking about.
It's problematic though because 'institutional racism' as it exists in 2015 may or may not contain racism. The systems legally are required to act equally between races, with disparate impact often being the result of non-discriminatory factors.
That's not to say that racism doesn't exist, rather that calling systemic problems 'racist' dumb down the discussion and alienates those who would like to help, but happen to be white.
|
On May 13 2015 07:53 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On May 13 2015 07:44 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On May 13 2015 06:19 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 13 2015 06:06 Anesthetic wrote:
@GreenHorizons
I think your on a thin line here, while I understand your points about blacks having unique problems that whites can't understand, at the very same time this can so easily turn into the "Blacks can't be racist" type of thoughts that are just so incredibly dumb.
Things have to be taken in an objective manner and thats quite a big problem with the Social Justice Movement, because even though YOU are using proper arguments/logic, a lot of those movements prefer to just act like nobody except blacks can comment on black issues, even if they have much stronger evidence. While I completely understand that whites will never know what its like to be a minority in this country(I am Mexican myself), there always have to be an effort to remain objective. Blacks can't be racist, they don't have the institutional power to be racist. They can act on prejudices but they lack the institutionalized power to make those prejudices standard practice. But making prejudices standard practice isn't what makes something racist; that only perpetuates the racism and makes it longer lasting (which is certainly worse), but anyone can be racist exactly through the acting of prejudices that you mention. You're right that blacks being racist doesn't really mean as much as a powerful majority being racist against blacks... and that we should certainly be focusing on the bigger picture and the people in charge making sure they can spread equality... but that doesn't give minorities a free pass to be bigots. Since you have been more reasonable than most I'll address what you said. No one is giving anyone a free pass. If you read my post carefully I even said on the individual level it is practically the same. The resistance to white privilege being established as a known reality and that institutionalized racism is a one way street seems to be heavily based on just simply misunderstanding what is even being said. If anything when black people act on prejudices or act 'racist' if you prefer, I think it's a little worse since they have been a victim of such before. I give white people a little more leniency as they are largely clueless through no significant individual fault of their own. However once white people are confronted with white privilege and/or their own racism and refuse to acknowledge it, let alone correct it, that patience rapidly fades.
Sorry I was late to the conversation ^^;; After reading through the previous two pages, I see that it's really more of a semantics argument than anything else. I just became immediately worried when you explicitly said "Blacks can't be racist", but your definition of what that entails (racism, that is), seems to involve a much deeper and more institutionalized form (one that I would consider a subset of racism in general). And that's fine; I just think a lot of other people took issue with your more specific criteria for racism instead of the broader dictionary-type definition. After all, I'm sure quite a few people could see your phrase "Blacks can't be racist" as relatively baiting... and it seems many (including myself) took that bait.
White privilege (and male privilege, for that matter) is a huge issue in America, and it's historically been such a one-way street, that it's certainly practical to talk about it from the perspective of institutionalized racism.
|
On May 13 2015 08:04 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Show nested quote +On May 13 2015 07:53 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 13 2015 07:44 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On May 13 2015 06:19 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 13 2015 06:06 Anesthetic wrote:
@GreenHorizons
I think your on a thin line here, while I understand your points about blacks having unique problems that whites can't understand, at the very same time this can so easily turn into the "Blacks can't be racist" type of thoughts that are just so incredibly dumb.
Things have to be taken in an objective manner and thats quite a big problem with the Social Justice Movement, because even though YOU are using proper arguments/logic, a lot of those movements prefer to just act like nobody except blacks can comment on black issues, even if they have much stronger evidence. While I completely understand that whites will never know what its like to be a minority in this country(I am Mexican myself), there always have to be an effort to remain objective. Blacks can't be racist, they don't have the institutional power to be racist. They can act on prejudices but they lack the institutionalized power to make those prejudices standard practice. But making prejudices standard practice isn't what makes something racist; that only perpetuates the racism and makes it longer lasting (which is certainly worse), but anyone can be racist exactly through the acting of prejudices that you mention. You're right that blacks being racist doesn't really mean as much as a powerful majority being racist against blacks... and that we should certainly be focusing on the bigger picture and the people in charge making sure they can spread equality... but that doesn't give minorities a free pass to be bigots. Since you have been more reasonable than most I'll address what you said. No one is giving anyone a free pass. If you read my post carefully I even said on the individual level it is practically the same. The resistance to white privilege being established as a known reality and that institutionalized racism is a one way street seems to be heavily based on just simply misunderstanding what is even being said. If anything when black people act on prejudices or act 'racist' if you prefer, I think it's a little worse since they have been a victim of such before. I give white people a little more leniency as they are largely clueless through no significant individual fault of their own. However once white people are confronted with white privilege and/or their own racism and refuse to acknowledge it, let alone correct it, that patience rapidly fades. Sorry I was late to the conversation ^^;; After reading through the previous two pages, I see that it's really more of a semantics argument than anything else. I just became immediately worried when you explicitly said "Blacks can't be racist", but your definition of what that entails (racism, that is), seems to involve a much deeper and more institutionalized form (one that I would consider a subset of racism in general). And that's fine; I just think a lot of other people took issue with your more specific criteria for racism instead of the broader dictionary-type definition. After all, I'm sure quite a few people could see your phrase "Blacks can't be racist" as relatively baiting... and it seems many (including myself) took that bait. White privilege (and male privilege, for that matter) is a huge issue in America, and it's historically been such a one-way street, that it's certainly practical to talk about it from the perspective of institutionalized racism.
Frankly I don't give a shit about the words. The point being blacks can't be 'systemically/institutionally racist' if that what you want to call it.
The arguing over the specific words is just more evidence of the problem. The irredeemably dumb comments like "maybe it's racism, maybe it's not" is the typical bullshit I'm talking about. There's no question racism or 'implicit bias' if you prefer is a real problem. Anyone who suggests otherwise is part of the problem.
|
On May 13 2015 07:43 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On May 13 2015 07:39 puerk wrote:
Yeah people not finding jobs has nothing to do with race but everything to do with unemployment as a concept being a desired feature of capitalism, by the employers, as it drives down the price of labor. And there being no reason there should ever be enough demand for work, to get everyone some sustenance. Capitalism prefers full employment actually. What you want is for a job to be available to everyone, and the only unemployment to be a timing difference between matching those without jobs to the jobs available (only structural unemployment). Earnings and valuations tend to be higher when the economy is doing well, and employment is close to full.
Ok to be more precise capitalism as a concept of course prefers nothing. But economic actors have preferences regarding the employment level. Especially in a demand constrained economy, which almost all of them are still after the 2008 recession.
Firms complain all the time that they do not find optimal employees, but instead of offering vocational training to fill that percived gap, they just forgo growth, cut costs and maximize shareholder value.
Some models tend to full employment under some conditions. But on the empirical side things are much bleaker, we do not even have good estimates of what the full employment level for modern economies actually is, because of 0 interest rates.
I totally agree with your point that earnings and valuations tend to be higher when the employment is close to full, but high median earnings are not percived as a good thing by many companies as cutting costs is still prefered over expansion. They just shift earnings from the bottom to the top.
But that still does not adress the fundamental issue that there is no reason economic activity should ever be diverse and plenty in the sense that there should be enough employment for everyone to go around. In a model with no intertemporal stickiness of any meaningful quantity you will of course get a quick optimisation (or shall we call it race to the bottom?) to a local optimum, where suddenly everyone gets employed because their wage is equal to their very very slightly above 0 utility, but reality just doesn't work like that. Wages are sticky. Humans can't sustain themselfs longer than corporations, and therefore always lose the negotiation battle.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT![[image loading]](https://dalewrites.files.wordpress.com/2011/10/better-world-for-nothing.jpg)
